Yes. Thank you. On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 5:41 PM Kenneth Goodwin wrote: > Would your S database perhaps be Sybase?? > > It is that era of time. > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 4:35 PM Clem Cole wrote: > >> Matt - I never had direct (user) experience with it. I saw a demo of >> LPI's product at a trade show. It might have run on Ultrix, but if it did, >> I have no memory of it being in the test suite we used for releases. Also, >> I do not remember if LPI-Colbol was attached to a specific DB >> implementation or not. In those days, there were a number of them besides >> Ingres - Informix, IBM's DB2, and one that started with an S - which later >> was sold to Microsoft to become SQL-server to name a few, and that may have >> been part of it. But there were bundled applications for different markets >> (running a dentist's office, car dealership, store, restaurant, *etc*..) >> that ran on small UNIX boxes and used those DBs. >> >> What I remember was that only a few firms were offering Cobol for UNIX (I >> think that IBM, DEC, DG, and maybe NCR had them from previous OSses), but >> the new generation of UNIX boxes did not - although 3rd parties like LPI >> sometimes offered them. Since it looks like AT&T is naming it/offering it >> with their product, that is another example of AT&T management missing the >> market. AT&T's management (Charlie Brown) was interested in going after >> IBM and probably thought that Cobol was important if they sold to IBM shops. >> >> The problem was that except for some really large 'Big Blue' places that >> never bothered tossing out Cobol (like Wall Street and some insurance >> companies --* i.e.* early IBM computer users), I always thought that >> writing *new code in Cobol or trying to port old code *was not done that >> often because the firms that were switching from Mainframes to UNIX were >> generally tossing out their homegrown applications at the same time and >> replacing the entire suite with something like SAP, BAAN, or Oracle >> APS that were networked, well integrated into things like PCs, used ASCII, >> *etc*. - *i.e*. using the replacement as the time to really upgrade >> their entire back office and possibly moving away from Big Blue based - >> which was not cost-effective (particularly for smaller firms). Another >> point was the Big 8 accounting firms started offering services that used >> the minis and UNIX boxes with SAP/BAAN/Oracle APS). Finally, I may miss >> remembering WRT to LPR-Cobol, but it was similar to today's Java in that it >> compiled into an interpreter. Plus, the impression I always had was that >> it was not designed for practical large-scale use or performance. >> >> BTW: this is a different behavior from the scientific world. From mini >> to supercomputers, in most cases, scientific users could not toss out their >> scientific computing tools and replace them with COTS alternatives (*i.e*., >> no firm like SAP, BAAN or Oracle providing "packaged" solutions for a bank >> or business). But since most of the production apps being used came with >> sources or the few that were commercial (Cadum, CATIA, Ansys *etc*..), >> it was possible to recompile and move things - so people did or the IVSs >> did. Even today, as one of my former colleagues put it, any sr computer >> system manager that ignores Fortran will eventually get fired for >> incompetence as it is still #1. >> ᐧ >> ᐧ >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 3:02 PM segaloco via TUHS wrote: >> >>> Reading through [1], there are documents offered by AT&T for the "Level >>> II COBOL" system, which some further research indicates is a product from >>> Convergent (same folks as the UNIX PC.) There's also the LPI-COBOL which >>> appears to be a Language Processor Inc. product. >>> >>> Are these the earliest AT&T endorsed COBOL solutions for UNIX or were >>> there other efforts either promoted by Bell or even perhaps developed >>> locally that were in any use before this version? Or otherwise is there >>> any other family of ubiquitous UNIX COBOL tools that was in use in the 70s >>> and early 80s, before the timeframe of this document? >>> >>> Additionally is anyone aware of any surviving code or binaries of either >>> of these or other, earlier efforts at COBOL on UNIX? I have no goal for >>> this information in mind yet, but just gathering details at this point. >>> Thanks all! >>> >>> - Matt G. >>> >>> [1] - >>> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/att/000-111_ATT_Documentation_Guide_Nov87.pdf >>> >> -- Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual